I think this group of coaches will bring in our first 5star player

[xc84]

People who give no credence to stars do so because we don't get a steady diet of 4 and 5 star players. When we do get a 4 star, people immediately go gaga. If next year we get more 4 stars, you watch people tout that and tout our recruiting. It's funny.

While a 2 star may become a stud and a 5 star a dud, one thing is true...

Give me twenty-two 4 and 5 star players and you take twenty-two 2 and 3 star players and I'll kick your ass every time.

Hmmm...will you let me go to college teams and choose which "4 and 5 star" players you get on your team and which "2 and 3 star" players I get on my team?

 

[RF2044]

People who give no credence to stars do so because we don't get a steady diet of 4 and 5 star players.

That's a sweeping generalization, and not true at all. I'd say that most people don't give credence to stars do so because of imbeciles like 30 second Bob L, and out of recognition that the scouts often don't evaluate anything but a relatively small subset of prospects.

 

[Yegorange]

Aside from the veracity and accuracy of these rankings - both certainly debatable - the bigger question IMO is PR. Does getting the blue chips help in that regard? The answer seems obvious.

 

[phil77]

When i look at a prospect I look at offers/stars then tape.....

But IMO the offers and stars go hand in hand...4 star with no offers raises flags in my mind. Same as 2 stars with massive offers. How can the a 4 star have no BCS offers? How can that kid have all those offers and be a 2 star?

 

[rrlbees]

That's a sweeping generalization, and not true at all. I'd say that most people don't give credence to stars do so because of imbeciles like 30 second Bob L, and out of recognition that the scouts often don't evaluate anything but a relatively small subset of prospects.

It's very true. Also, bob didn't do the stars.

Sent using my Commodore 64 on Tapatalk 5.3

 

[tep624]

That's a sweeping generalization, and not true at all. I'd say that most people don't give credence to stars do so because of imbeciles like 30 second Bob L, and out of recognition that the scouts often don't evaluate anything but a relatively small subset of prospects.

The second part of your statement is key because we play in the 2-3 star prospect range about 90% of the time. That range has the least amount of time spent analyzing prospects and the most subjectivity. Part of the problem is that you have people affiliated with the recruiting sites claiming that star rankings are based upon analysis and analysis only, but if that was the case you'd see actual analysis which backs up the recruits ranking and the vast majority of the time you don't. And you won't see recruits bouncing around based upon who has offered them (cough scout cough Zach Allen now a 3 star cough).

Again all this stuff is subjective but the one thing I like about ESPN is they provide analysis for each and every recruit they rank. Whether it's right or wrong, at least it is there.

 

[RF2044]

It's very true. Also, bob didn't do the stars.

Sent using my Commodore 64 on Tapatalk 5.3

Nonsense. It may be true for some critics of the star system, but certainly not all.

 

[rrlbees]

Nonsense. It may be true for some critics of the star system, but certainly not all.

Ok. 90%. People don't even know who assigns stars or how. Guarantee if we got several 4/5 stars people would go nuts. Why?

Sent using my Commodore 64 on Tapatalk 5.3

 

[RF2044]

Ok. 90%. People don't even know who assigns stars or how. Guarantee if we got several 4/5 stars people would go nuts. Why?

Sent using my Commodore 64 on Tapatalk 5.3

Who cares? The point is that the majority of stuff posted on recruiting websites is unadulterated bunk. 30 Second Bob L --whether he assigns stars or not--exemplifies the problem.

The issue isn't projecting the top 250 blue chip prospects that constitute the bulk of 4/5 star recruits. The issue is the thousands of other players who are a cut below that, where there is a lot of parity / similarity / little difference athletically. Clowns like Bob L muddy the water with their partially informed assessment of prospect X versus prospect Y. This is also a system where the stars assigned to certain players vacillate up or down depending on who else offers them or which schools recruit them. When you step back and look at the process objectively, it really is a joke.

Adding even more complexity to the above, football recruiting is a tremendously inexact science. Offer lists are often a better indication of quality, but even that doesn't tell the full story, since so many prospects fib a bit about their offers. And none of the above takes into account whether players have the athletic ability or attributes to be system fits--linebacker Z might not work in one team's system, but thrive in another's.

Bottom line: looking only at stars is a poor way to evaluate recruiting quality. Of course people would go nuts if we landed a 5 star--that's because we haven't landed one in nearly twenty years. That doesn't make the evaluative process any better.

 

[Rocco]

Give me a bunch of Nassib's, Lemon's, Pugh's, Jerome Smith's, Bromley's, ShamWow's with good coaching and you can have your 4-5 stars, Bees.

 

[rrlbees]

Who cares? The point is that the majority of stuff posted on recruiting websites is unadulterated bunk. 30 Second Bob L --whether he assigns stars or not--exemplifies the problem.

The issue isn't projecting the top 250 blue chip prospects that constitute the bulk of 4/5 star recruits. The issue is the thousands of other players who are a cut below that, where there is a lot of parity / similarity / little difference athletically. Clowns like Bob L muddy the water with their partially informed assessment of prospect X versus prospect Y. This is also a system where the stars assigned to certain players vacillate up or down depending on who else offers them or which schools recruit them. When you step back and look at the process objectively, it really is a joke.

Adding even more complexity to the above, football recruiting is a tremendously inexact science. Offer lists are often a better indication of quality, but even that doesn't tell the full story. And none of the above takes into account whether players have the athletic ability or attributes to be system fits--linebacker Z might not work in one team's system, but thrive in another's.

Bottom line: looking only at stars is a poor way to evaluate recruiting quality. Of course people would go nuts if we landed a 5 star--that's because we haven't landed one in nearly twenty years. That doesn't make the evaluative process any better.

That's a lot of words trying to debunk fact.

Sent using my Commodore 64 on Tapatalk 5.3

 

[RF2044]

That's a lot of words trying to debunk fact.

Sent using my Commodore 64 on Tapatalk 5.3

It's not a fact--it is your unsubstantiated opinion. I don't care whether you disagree with me or not--I know from reading this board for years that there are others who feel pretty similar about recruiting ratings / the star system to what I express above, which invalidates the sweeping generalization you made in the original post I responded to...

People who give no credence to stars do so because we don't get a steady diet of 4 and 5 star players.

That's not the only reason that people give no credence to stars. That's a fact.

 

[rrlbees]

It's not a fact--it is your unsubstantiated opinion. I don't care whether you disagree with me or not--I'm sure from reading this board for years that there are others who feel pretty similar about recruiting ratings / the star system that I do, which invalidates the original post you made that I responded to...



That's not the only reason that people give no credence to stars. That's a fact.

I modified that fact. I'm also talking about several points that weren't in my post here but that you raised in your reply.

Sent using my Commodore 64 on Tapatalk 5.3

 

[Rocco]

I modified that fact. I'm also talking about several points that weren't in my post here but that you raised in your reply.

Sent using my Commodore 64 on Tapatalk 5.3

Can we start a Syracusefan stars system? You, Mr. Bees, would ultimately give out the stars, which would we would rename as "bees". 4-5 "bees" across the board (i.e. Trevon "Machete" Trejo would be a low 4-bees player.

Many on here are experts at studying a YouTube highlight tape with rap music blasting in the background.

We could have a "talent" panel headed by Cali, which he would be in charge of appointing his committee.

Fock it Bees, we're not associated with Riivals, Scoot or ESPN, so why not? Let's have some fun.

 

[kjb120]

Give me a bunch of Nassib's, Lemon's, Pugh's, Jerome Smith's, Bromley's, ShamWow's with good coaching and you can have your 4-5 stars, Bees.

While I don't think stars are everything and guys like bob l are a joke, I would say give me 4-5 star players with good coaching and we would be Alabama winning national championships rather then being 8-5. Also it's interesting that teams that usually have the best recruiting classes tend to be the powerhouses year in and year out, it's not a coincidence. The easiest players to rate are 5 star players that are usually superior in most facets of the game, so if teams are brining in these types of players it means that most likely they will be a key contributor. This is not to say a 2-3 star player can't do the same as we have seen this year but the chances are not as great.

 

[RF2044]

While I don't think stars are everything and guys like bob l are a joke, I would say give me 4-5 star players with good coaching and we would be Alabama winning national championships rather then being 8-5. Also it's interesting that teams that usually have the best recruiting classes tend to be the powerhouses year in and year out, it's not a coincidence. The easiest players to rate are 5 star players that are usually superior in most facets of the game, so if teams are brining in these types of players it means that most likely they will be a key contributor. This is not to say a 2-3 star player can't do the same as we have seen this year but the chances are not as great.

Agree 100% with this post. Obviously, there are busts, but the chances of a 5 star recruit panning out are higher [in general] than their 2 stars counterparts.

Problem is, we haven't played at a level where we can legitimately land 5-star caliber recruits, and even when we were there were only a handful of these types of players we were able to land. Which means that our staple is going to be three-star types, and a lot of under the radar types that the staff believes are good fits athletically for what we do. The last coaching staff seemed to do a very solid job of identifying these under the radar types; remains to be seen whether the new one can, as well.

My hope is that we can continue on our upward trajectory, establish ourselves as an annual bowl contender, get to 7, 8, or 9 wins every year, and have the majority of our recruiting classes be three star caliber offer kids, with some higher rated recruits sprinkled in. My thought is that we'll still need to continue being strong at finding lower rated kids who are overlooked and bring good athletic ability to the table, as well.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Can we start a Syracusefan stars system? You, Mr. Bees, would ultimately give out the stars, which would we would rename as "bees". 4-5 "bees" across the board (i.e. Trevon "Machete" Trejo would be a low 4-bees player.

Many on here are experts at studying a YouTube highlight tape with rap music blasting in the background.

We could have a "talent" panel headed by Cali, which he would be in charge of appointing his committee.

Fock it Bees, we're not associated with Riivals, Scoot or ESPN, so why not? Let's have some fun.

Give me 5 bees for a quarter?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[VaSaltine]

Well, we've offered two five stars in the class of 2014. You can't get five stars on campus if you don't offer them.

 

[Czar]

It's been studied, stars correlate to success. I don't know why this is still a thing.

 

[xc84]

It's been studied, stars correlate to success. I don't know why this is still a thing.

OR success correlates to stars. If Alabama recruits a kid, he gets a better rating. I am not saying these kids are not good. Obviously they are... but kids like Bromley, Mike Williams are out there. If Alabama recruited them, they'd be "4 star" players. They are not "under the radar". They are there...and ignored, in part, because they don't play in a football-rich state and because they may not have the years of experience a kid from e.g. FL might have.

 

[rrlbees]

OR success correlates to stars. If Alabama recruits a kid, he gets a better rating. I am not saying these kids are not good. Obviously they are... but kids like Bromley, Mike Williams are out there. If Alabama recruited them, they'd be "4 star" players. They are not "under the radar". They are there...and ignored, in part, because they don't play in a football-rich state and because they may not have the years of experience a kid from e.g. FL might have.

Not completely true either. Alabama has eight 3 stars in this class. Why aren't they bumped to 4&5 stars? Guys Williams were under the radar as nobody really recruited him. If he had translated to be a stud im college and future pro, he would have been recruited by the big boys. It happens. Had nothing yo do with the stars.

Sent using my Commodore 64 on Tapatalk 5.3

 

[xc84]

About 50% of last year's first rounders were rated 3 or less stars coming out of high school. So, in reality, these were the cream of the crop...and rated 3 star or less by the so-called experts.

 

[xc84]

Not completely true either. Alabama has eight 3 stars in this class. Why aren't they bumped to 4&5 stars? Guys Williams were under the radar as nobody really recruited him. If he had translated to be a stud im college and future pro, he would have been recruited by the big boys. It happens. Had nothing yo do with the stars.

I think you backed my point. The fact that the Alabamas didn't see these kids as good, left them ranked lowly. If they had, and recruited them, their ratings would've jumped. Instead, Syracuse got them. They turned out pretty well.

 

[Libero2]

About 50% of last year's first rounders were rated 3 or less stars coming out of high school. So, in reality, these were the cream of the crop...and rated 3 star or less by the so-called experts.

And the other 50% were 4 and 5 stars coming out of high school. If there are 200 4/5 star prospects in a given year and 16 become first rounders, vs 1500 1/2/3 star prospects where 16 become first rounders, which set was a higher percentage of prospects becoming 1st round picks.

a higher percentage of the pool of 4/5 star prospects become future first rounders than the pool of 1/2/3 stars.

 

[rrlbees]

I think you backed my point. The fact that the Alabamas didn't see these kids as good, left them ranked lowly. If they had, and recruited them, their ratings would've jumped. Instead, Syracuse got them. They turned out pretty well.

Yes, because he was under the radar. Nobody recruited him. It happens.

Sent using my Commodore 64 on Tapatalk 5.3